The importance of good communication skills in science

I'm interested in hearing how scientists feel about

1. How well they are trained (or not) to communicate their research and results

2. How important they feel good communication is for a scientist - by this I mean presentation style and skills, writing skills, and overall ability to convey the importance of their research to both their peers and to the general public.

3. Who is responsible for communicating the outcome of cutting edge research to the public? The scientists themselves? The press? The government?

It seems that with issues such as decreases in scientific research funding, negative public perception of how much science returns to society, etc, that this is of critical importance, but I would love to hear from others.
Especially great examples of both excellent and poor science communication and the downstream effects of said communication.

I believe that these are very important questions. I have witnessed examples of both excellent and poor scientific communication, and think that more emphasis should be given, not just to the overall scientific quality of the presentation, paper, etc., but also to the quality of the presentation of that data. Novel data of the highest quality will not reach the intended audience if that audience cannot understand it, nor will it have the intended impact if presented in an unclear or illogical manner.

1. How well they are trained (or not) to communicate their research and results

I think I have been trained fairly well in commmunicating my research and results, due to presenting to undergrad and graduate seminar courses, research symposia, lab meetings, journal clubs, more general scientific conferences, and more specialized research conferences, as well as in teaching undergraduate classes and preparing papers for publication. All of these have forced me to consider the most effective ways to present data to various types of audiences for various purposes. However, some of this was learned by trial and error, by observing the ways in which other people wrote papers or gave talks, and by feedback when I mysefl wrote papers or presented talks/posters, and it would have been more efficient to have formal training.

2. How important they feel good communication is for a scientist - by this I mean presentation style and skills, writing skills, and overall ability to convey the importance of their research to both their peers and to the general public.

I have seen talks, posters, and even papers submitted for review that had some data, but the presentation of that data lacked logical organization, failed to put the research findings into context, and failed to indicate the importance or significance of the findings. While it is possible that the presenter/speaker/author has been inadequately trained, and, given useful feedback, can improve their communication skills, it is difficult for me to think of a person who presents his or her findings in this manner is truly a scientist. If a person cannot convey the importance of their research to their peers and the general public, that person likely does not understand the importance or significance of the findings himself/herself, and, as such, is not truly a scientist. Someone who has data but cannot explain its importance or meaning in a logical, well-reasoned manner is more of a technician than a scientist.

Of course, this does not apply to a non-native English speaker who has difficulty communicating in English. It is generally clear to the audience whether the problem results from a language barrier or a deficiency in scientific understanding.

3. Who is responsible for communicating the outcome of cutting edge research to the public? The scientists themselves? The press? The government?

Ultimately, scientists should be responsible for communicating research findings to the public, albeit not necessarily the scientists who generated the data/published the findings. The scientists who actually conducted the experiments are likely at least somewhat biased in their own favor, and may have an inflated view of the importance or significance of their findings. Scientists that are experts in the same field and were not involved in the research study that will be communciated to the public are likely to understand the true significance and importance of the work without overstating its impact.

I think that the press is very important in communicating research to the public, as long as the person reporting on the findings has some scientific background or understanding, and communicates with both the authors of the study as well as other experts in the field to ensure an unbiased, accurate representation of the research and its implications. The best situation, in my opinion, is one in which the original authors prepare some type of press release (which is the situation at my university), and a scientific reporter uses this information, along with supporting materials from experts in the field, to communicate the new findings to the public. I particularly like the research summaries prepared for the Biocompare newsletters in this regard.

"The importance of good communication skills in science"

From an 84 yr old retired biochem PhD:

At my age, with my personal life experience, my feeling-opinion is that "The importance of good communication skills in science" is bullshit:

1) There is only one thing that is "...important...in science..." for science, for scientists, for humanity, and that is the new scientific comprehension that is presented.

2) "Good communication skills" is important for advancing the welfare of persons younger than me, in "science" as in every and in all other fields...

3) In fact some aspects of "good communication skills" are plainly and obviously the biggest obstacles to human scientific and social and societal survival evolution...

Dov Henis

PS:

And from an 84 yr old US citizen:
And in fact some aspects of "good communication skills" plainly and obviously have never contributed to nationally rational presidential elections... DH

PS PS: Culture is a ubiquitous biological entity... DH

Who is responsible for communicating the outcome of cutting-edge research to the public?

I would like to attempt answering this important question using two metaphors: Communication of a signal through an electrical network, and communication mediated by wind.

Electrical network.

The scientist who conducted the research is the source of the first signal in a long chain of networked communicators with various degrees of conductance, resonance, and amplification (managers, you are part of that chain).
One may argue that, without that sense of exaggeration brought by the "inflated view of the importance of their findings" described in an earlier comment, personal scientific communication would lack the energy necessary to pass through a network unable to easily distinguish signal from noise - even after peer-review. The communicator should indeed be in an excited state for a while. Otherwise, we would have to rely only on the characteristics of the signal transmission path in the network-- a network whose amplification characteristics are often - and understandably - biased by the recognition of the success potential of the signal source.

Communication as wind

Naturally, there is chaff and there is wheat. And we need wind to separate the two. The wind of change is one, but also the gentle wind of well-targeted communication. Occasionally, if the impact is great, the wind of mass communication will kick up a storm great enough to blow away the chaff and seed productive ideas across a vast land, as well as return to fallow land parts of the sterile research landscape by depriving it from its life-sustaining grants.

To sum up: the responsibility is collective. Scientists need the press, but they also need to be aware of and energised by the impact of their research. As always, managers have a great role to play to facilitate this, but they need to understand that wind can also snuff a good candle, and that resistors always create heat.